I am a professor and endowed professor at the University of Houston where I founded and direct the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture and head the graduate program in space architecture. My background deals extensively with research, planning and design of habitats, structures and other support systems for applications in space and extreme environments on Earth. I have recently written a new book titled "Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax". It can be previewed and ordered at www.climateofcorruption.com. Additional information about my book and views can be found on my YouTube address: http://www.youtube.com/climateofcorruption.

U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms

It may not come as surprising news to many of you that the United Nations doesn’t approve of our Second Amendment. Not one bit. And they very much hope to do something about it with help from some powerful American friends. Under the guise of a proposed global “Small Arms Treaty” premised to fight “terrorism”, “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates” you can be quite certain that an even more insidious threat is being targeted – our Constitutional right for law-abiding citizens to own and bear arms.

What, exactly, does the intended agreement entail?

While the terms have yet to be made public, if passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:

Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Have no doubt that this plan is very real, with strong Obama administration support. In January 2010 the U.S. joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N. Arms Treaty Resolution that will establish a 2012 conference to draft a blueprint for enactment. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Although professing to support the Second Amendment during her presidential election bid, Hillary Clinton is not generally known as a gun rights enthusiast. She has been a long-time activist for federal firearms licensing and registration, and a vigorous opponent of state Right-to-Carry laws. As a New York senator she ranked among the National Rifle Association’s worst “F”-rated gun banners who voted to support the sort of gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans‘ rogue police actions against law-abiding gun owners in the anarchistic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

President Obama’s record on citizen gun rights doesn’t reflect much advocacy either. Consider for example his appointment of anti-gun rights former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels as an alternate U.S. representative to the U.N., and his choice of Andrew Traver who has worked to terminate civilian ownership of so-called “assault rifles” (another prejudicially meaningless gun term) to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Then, in a move unprecedented in American history, the Obama administration quietly banned the re-importation and sale of 850,000 collectable antique U.S.-manufactured M1 Garand and Carbine rifles that were left in South Korea following the Korean War. Developed in the 1930s, the venerable M1 Garand carried the U.S. through World War II, seeing action in every major battle.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

You say that This Small Arms Treaty needs immediate or urgent attention our part. Do you make that statement based on your own research, or are you saying it because of something somebody told you and you thought you could make a good story out of it?

This treaty is not an urgent threat. There has been no movement since 2008, and that was only a list of recommendations.

For you, or any other professional journalist to continue to perpetuate this Internet Myth, you do yourself and your readers a grave injustice.

You quote the Constitution, mainly the Second and Tenth Amendments. You would do better to address the abuses and attacks on our rights through the enumerated powers with emphasis on the Commerce Clause. Then study the Federalist Papers. Our Second Amendment Rights have not been all that abused. The Second Amendment has just been bypassed by Congress and Administrations for decades. The abuses come from Congress basically bypassing the enumerated powers using the Commerce Clause. The Federalist Papers specifically address this issue.

A few of you have incorrectly assumed that the facts presented in this article are drawn from an October 14, 2009 Reuters.com article “US reverses stance on treaty to regulate arms trade” and cite a rebuttal issued by Snopes.com. You claimed that there is no current or planned “treaty “ that would change anything, and that such unsupportable rumors have been circulating for years. You also, this time correctly, point out that the UN has no (direct) power to preempt rights protected by our Constitution, referring in this case to the Second Amendment…most particularly involving an outright ban on our rights to purchase or own firearms.

First, with regard to the treaty, be advised that in January 2010 the US joined 152 other countries in endorsing a proposal to enact a new “International Small Arms Treaty” disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty”. A special 2012 conference scheduled to occur in 2012 will draft a blueprint for enactment.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has pledged to push for Senate ratification. Senator Rand Paul has taken the lead in making the American public aware of this plan, and the urgency of defeating Senate approval.

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has cautioned gun owners to take this initiative seriously, stating that the U.N. “is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.”

Be aware that while the president or Congress cannot “ban” citizen rights to own firearms, the president and Congress can, and have, controlled types of firearms we are allowed to purchase or own. An example is the “assault weapons” ban President Clinton signed in 1994 banning 19 types of semi-automatic military-“style” guns, along with magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The president and Congress can constrict the types of guns we can have until the pathetic choices that remain essentially accomplish ideological anti-gun agendas.

Another example of what Congress can do…consider the upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs. To the best of my knowledge, none have ever killed anyone. Of course Congress hasn’t (yet) banned use of electric lighting so it must be OK.

While no UN treaty can infringe directly upon our sovereign rights, a Senate-ratified International Small Arms Treaty will offer a politically correct president for government actions that will amount to the same thing. Senator Paul identified some outcomes that should be expected which I noted in this article: enactment of tough gun licensing requirements and red tape; confiscation/destruction of “unauthorized” civilian firearms; bans on sale and private ownership of semi-automatic weapons; international gun registration; and yes, de facto sacrifice and transfer of more and more individual rights to government .

So it really comes down to this. If you don’t have a problem with nannystate policies, and would prefer that citizens be effectively disarmed, then you really shouldn’t be concerned at all about issues raised in this article. On the other hand, please excuse the rest of us, and there are many, who have good reasons to worry…and even better reasons to vote.

Trying to dissarm the american citizens wont eliminate crime, since the people that will be affected by the H.R.45 are the law abiding citizens. Instead the crime rate will increase since the thugs will be able to continue there criminal agenda without any resistence or opposition. What the U.N should be focusing on is eliminating OIL and creating cheaper energy sources and fixing the food shortage!

The difference is the the gun laws passed in Germany you are referring to were passed in 1928.The problem with this is that the Fascists didn’t come to power till 1933.The gun laws passed in 1928 by the Social Democrats,which is “Marxism Lite”,were used to crack down on the Nazis and other right-wing groups and militias.When the Nazis came to power they keep the law in place in order to return the favor by disarming the Marxists,but ordinary German citizens had the right to bear arms.The best proof of this is at the closing of the war when the call for “Total War” was ordered and militias called up, more than half of those enlisted showed up with their own rifles.Gun control has always been about NWO and if anyone believes that ,for example, a Nazi in Germany would take orders or be controlled by a foreign power or group is either a fool or a liar because Nationalism doesn’t work that way no matter what Fox News,CNN or MSNBC tell you.

“In Oct 2009, the First Committee agreed to meet once again in 2012 to draw up a blueprint”.

And this is urgent?

“In Jan 2010 the US joined 152 other countries in endorsing the proposal. Sec of State Clinton has pledged to push for Senate Ratification”.

No real surprise there. Oh, and unless things have changed the Senate does NOT ratify treaties/proposals/resolutions.

You are absolutely correct in that: “The president and Congress HAS constricted the types of guns we can have until the pathetic choices that remain essentially accomplish ideological anti-gun agendas. “

I would be very interested in how this is/has been done LEGALLY and CONSTITUTIONALLY.

I said earlier our efforts should concentrate on the abuse of the enumerated powers and the Commerce clause.

Lets just take the example of ‘Light Bulbs’ you referenced. I do hope this is passed. Once on the books, it’s Constitutionality can be challenged, and it will most likely be declared Unconstitutional. Well, regulating light bulbs does not appear in the enumerated powers. Once done, just watch the domino effect on many Federal laws, including firearm laws . They ultimately will be declared Unconstitutional because of a decision made for something as inconsequential as a light bulb.

Lastly, even if this blueprint does get drafted in ‘12, , and is ultimately presented to the Senate for it’s consent, do you really think it would get the 2/3 vote of the full chamber for it’s consent? Don’t forget, all Class 1 Senators are up for re-election in ‘12. But even if by some miracle the Senate did consent, Obama knows full well he would kill whatever chance he now has for re-election. So, this will not get to the Senate until after the 12 elections, if it gets there at all.

Assuming Obama does get re-elected and this hits his desk. He will still have the Senate to deal with. And once again, in ‘14, another two years time, one third of the Senate will be up for re-election.

As a previous poster stated. This is a POTENTIAL Treaty that has yet to be put on paper It has been a potential treaty since 2000/2001. It may actually get to paper in 12 for the consideration of the UN members. At my age, I’ll be long gone before the voting members actually agree to the resolution wording.

I note with amusement how you warn us about the contents of a ‘secret’ treaty that will ‘almost certainly contain’, as though you have some sort of access to secret proceedings the rest of us don’t have. Almost Certainly Contain? Is that the best you can do? Why not focus on a treaty whose conditions are known? Why do you fail to say anything about the far more frightening “Anti-Blasphemy” treaty whose conditions are known and whose intent is to blatantly restrict your freedom of speech and whose penalties are far more frightening than any nebulous ‘anti-gun’ treaty? I find it the worst kind of fear mongering that you trot out the old standbys of registration and confiscation and banning and over-riding the second amendment as though the UN had any real authority at all. Your points are lame copy-pastes of every lame anti-Brady Bill complaint and your complaints suggest that your understanding of these talking points is cursory at best. Just for example, you say there is no such thing as an assault rifle. Let me, as an Army Officer, assure you that there is such a thing as an assault rifle, I carried one in Afghanistan every day for the last year. The nebulous, meaningless word that was used during the run up to the Brady Bill that you’re looking for is ‘assault WEAPON’. Also, did you know that during the height of the Brady Bill, it was still perfectly legal for me to purchase a fully automatic assault rifle if I chose to? I also bought several ‘Pre-ban Hi-cap magazines’ during that period too. So much for that “tough” bit of legislation. Another example of your poor understanding of the issue is your conclusion that registration naturally and automatically leads to confiscation. Your logic is flawed here too, in favor of creating an environment of fear. Having just spent a year in Afghanistan where confiscating illegal weapons was de-riguer for our combat forces, I must point out that there was a concerted effort to register fire-arms among the Afghan population. I must also point out that ISAF forces never confiscated weapons that were registered with the government. We sure did confiscate a lot of weapons that weren’t registered, though. It’s all moot though. The UN is a mouthpiece. It’s a gutless organization that cannot back up its legal proclamations without the US doing the grunt work. So it can make all of the anti-constitutional statements it wants, but it has no ability to enforce them. In any case, if there were such a proclamation for civilian weapons to be confiscated, who do you think would be doing the confiscation? The US Military? Hardly. We’re far more pro-second amendment and Pro-private gun ownership than you are. (In fact, fear mongering like yours put Soldiers at risk in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. Soldiers in Southern Louisiana were not out to confiscate weapons, but a whole lot of folks who otherwise needed help thought that they were. Those folks refused to let the Soldiers anywhere near them and in some cases even shot at them. It took the Soldiers days and even weeks in some cases to convince the civilians that the Army was not there to take their guns. Days and weeks that those civilians suffered because they wouldn’t accept the humanitarian aid the Soldiers were bringing.) Really, if the Anti-First Amendment Anti-Blasphemy treaty won’t be observed or respected by the United States Government, what makes you think any other anti-constitutional treaties will be?

Why do we always have to hear the statement that includes 2.5 million in 1993? That information is almost, get this, almost 20 years old. To the supposedly educated people, please tell me what antique information has to do with the here and now? Why isn’t current information mentioned, for some comparison? Will we still be hearing “2.5 million in 1993″ in 2023? Too bad there’s no data for 1893, the ratio per people probably would be greater, no? Still would be meaningless. It’s like the old adage …. comparing apples to nuts.

I’m following and I’m not naive, and I care. I’m pro gun but, with reasonable restrictions. My belief is some gun advocates are paranoid and getting beyond the point of good reasoning. The majority of gun advocates still have the good reasoning.